We'll be discussing the future of the ECHR, with reference to debates in the UK & more generally across Europe, at UCL on Friday 7th November next 11-13:00. Speakers include Robert Spano (ex-President of the ECrtHR) and Jens Elo Peters Rytter (Copenhagen). (Event link follows.)

Our rights are under attack. The ECHR protects us all – but politicians want to rip it apart. Tell your MP: defend our rights, defend the ECHR. ✍️

The UK must stand up for human rights and reject calls to leave the ECHR - Sign the open letter https://t.co/Q3hPtp3l8l

At least one Conservative still upholds his party’s traditional respect for human rights and the rule of law. He even still believes in evidence-based arguments. This week he will be the exception, not the rule. Enjoy this article for free. https://t.co/XeeM7EFkAn

Leaving the ECHR would collapse the Good Friday Agreement - and do nothing to stop irregular migration because it would cut UK off from multilateral cooperation on criminal gangs, returns. #bbclaurak @bbclaurak @KemiBadenoch

Presumably @Nigel_Farage wants the UK to join Russia and Belarus as the only European countries outside the ECHR because he admires Putin so much. I guess @KemiBadenoch wants to leave only because Farage has already promised to do it.

Correct! The chicken nuggets story was wholly untrue when politicians first invoked it. It’s a lie - retract it @RobertJenrick (for evidence see https://t.co/R44cv4kwHh)

https://t.co/y78hUvBk1P

This shoddy report distorts the truth. What enrages me today is that Lord Faulks' foreword shamelessly misrepresents the late Conor Gearty & enlists him posthumously in a project he would despise. Conor's piece in latest @LRB speaks for itself. Shame on you @Policy_Exchange

Well worth reading @alicedonald’s thread. Especially BBC presenters who too easily take cues from DMail/Tel/Soeccie @TomBaldwin66 @Peston @robertshrimsley

.@bbcnickrobinson is a serious journalist and @BBCr4today is a national institution. I’m sure neither would deliberately want to mislead listeners about a hugely important issue like human rights. But it appears that they did.

So, this is a plea for evidence-based debate, a sense of scale, and careful use of language in a context in which #ECHR withdrawal has become a badge of honour for the radical right across Europe, now being aped and legitimised, esp by @Conservatives https://t.co/8eTgu38Ajb 10/10

The peripheral role of the #ECHR in immigration holds across Europe: out of 400,000 applications processed by the #ECtHR in the past ten years, only 2% concerned the rights of non-nationals in a Council of Europe state, and violations found in < 300 cases across 46 states 9/10

See this report published by @BonaveroIHR for evidence for these figures: https://t.co/R44cv4kwHh 8/10

Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled only 13 times that removing a person from the UK would violate their rights, and only 4 of those were based on the right to family life (fewer than one per decade) 7/10

On average between 2008-2021, around 180 foreign national offenders per year had appeals on human rights grounds alone allowed by the First-tier Tribunal - so withdrawal from #ECHR would mean removing rights from everyone in UK to perhaps deport a few dozen people a year 6/10

UK debate vastly overestimates the effect of the #ECHR on deportations. Some stats: The number of foreign offenders who successfully appealed against deportation on human rights grounds alone is tiny compared to the total number of sentenced FNOs in the UK: around 0.73% 5/10

3. Suggestion that a foreign national offender could escape deportation on basis of "a worse health service". Such cases are, in fact, highly exceptional, with a high threshold e.g. imminent risk of death of a seriously ill person. See https://t.co/Zm8V16uMXm 4/10

2. A Brazilian paedophile escaped deportation "by claiming that he would be treated worse in a Brazilian prison than he would in a British prison". This misconstrues the very high bar for proving risk of torture/inhuman treatment. See https://t.co/R44cv4kwHh 3/10

1. "Another controversial article in its interpretation is Article 8, which restricts any limits on family life". As @shamichakrabar1 said, Article 8 *can* be balanced against the public interest, and the latter holds great sway in cases on deportation of foreign offenders 2/10